Category Archives: State Politics

Local Politics

A Heads Up For Denver City Council District 11 Constituents

Many of us who live in Denver Public Schools (DPS) School Board District 4 that is now represented by DPS  school board member Landri Taylor do not have to think too far back to reflect on a time when we were thoroughly disappointed by someone that we elected to represent us.  That person wasn’t elected to represent us as a Denver City Council member; but do you remember Nate Easley?

Mr. Easley was elected to the Denver Public Schools school board to represent constituents in District 4 prior to being replaced by current board member Landri Taylor.  According to a blog posted by Jim Horn in Schools Matter in February of 2011 Horn said; “When Easley was campaigning to become the swing vote on the Denver Board of Education, he promised to sit down with parents to discuss the continuing corporate efforts to shut down and privatize Denver schools.  He lied.  Now a recall effort is underway.”

The effort to recall Nate Easley failed but I remember it well.  I live in the district that Mr. Easley represented and I recall how disappointed I felt when he voted in favor of Denver Public Schools Superintendent Tom Boasberg’s plan that would decimate many of the schools in our neighborhood.  Shortly after that time, Mr. Easley resigned and slithered away to the job that he likely coveted all along.  But I digress.  The point is that there is an election to the Denver City Council that is coming up in May of this year that will impact on Denver School Board District 4.

Denver School Board District 4 is a part of City Council District 11.  There are five candidates that are running for the District 11 seat.  Of those five candidates, as of February 27, 2015, only three have submitted enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot.  The three that qualify are Tim Camarillo, Stacie Gilmore, and Tea Schook.  The remaining two candidates, Sean Bradley and Shelli Brown, had not yet submitted enough valid signatures to qualify.

Although Christopher Herndon is the current incumbent holding the District 11 City Council seat, with the new boundaries that will take effect on July 20th this year, he is running unopposed in District 8.  Because the new boundaries will not become effective until July, which obviously is after the May elections, there has been and remains some confusion as to which boundaries voters will be voting under.

Under the circumstances, voters should make sure to check the new boundaries and be sure they understand which boundaries they are voting under before they cast their ballots.  Hopefully the Office Of The Clerk And Recorder Elections Division will clear up any confusion in plenty of time before the May elections.

After I reviewed the available information on the three eligible candidates’ backgrounds and skills, I am satisfied that they are qualified for the position.  I recommend that all voters in City Council District 11 take the time to review the backgrounds and skills of all of these candidates’ and those of anyone else that becomes eligible for the ballot.

In this case, Stacie Gilmore, Tea Schook, and Tim Camarillo – in that order from my perspective, are very viable candidates.  All of them have good experience, which can be applied effectively to get the job done.  It will be interesting to have them together in the same setting while debating and possibly having each give their response to the same questions.

Obviously, Ms. Schook and Mr. Camarillo are politicians; and based on the investment they placed into securing their political tools, are likely ambitious politicians with aspirations to achieve higher heights.  Because they are politicians their behavior is, to a great degree, predictable.

With all due respect to Mr. Herndon and those who wish to replace him, voters must always remember that politicians will be politicians and – more often than not, most of them will be inclined to do the things that are in their own best interest first unless their feet are held to the fire.  While Ms. Gilmore is not a politician, if she wins, she will immediately be exposed to the power that a politician possesses and be subject to pursuit by those who desire to influence how she uses it; therefore, her feet will also need to be held to the fire.

So for those of us in District 11 – despite who we might decide to vote for, hopefully based on their overall qualifications and skills, let’s not waste their qualifications and skills but let’s always remember that, first and foremost, they are politicians.  Right now, we have one candidate who is not yet a politician but she must be held to this same standard should she win.  And knowing this, let’s always hold the feet of whomever is the ultimate victor to the fire whenever necessary and for as long as necessary to assure that they represent our best interest and not that of whatever will better advance their political aspirations.

There will be a number of forums coming up for these candidates to participate in before the upcoming election.  I intend to attend the one in my area on March 31st to see what each candidate has to say before I make my final decision as to who I will vote for.  I suggest and hope that you will attend one that is most convenient for you before you make your final decision as to who you will vote for.

With regard to all of the candidates in the race to fill the District 11 seat I say good luck.  Of course I would like to see the candidate that I will support win but the most important point that I want to emphasize is this: whether you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent; get registered and always vote.  And always remember, your vote is the most important one of all, unless you don’t use it!

Eulus Dennis

Federal Politics, Local Politics

Police Departments Throughout The Country Are Receiving Closer Scrutiny

Because of all of the brouhaha that is continuing to swirl around policing of the citizenry around the country, something that recently happened that involves the Denver Police Department caught my attention.  What happened was that Denver Police Chief Robert White called for his police officers to stand down when protesters defaced the Denver Police Departments Fallen Officer Memorial in front of the main police building located at 1331 Cherokee Street in Downtown Denver.

Although those responsible were later arrested and charged with a felony, this did not set well with many of these police officers and they made it known by calling for Chief White’s resignation.  According to KUSA in Denver, the head of the police union spoke about the incident: “We will no longer follow him as we move forward” said Nick Rogers, president of the Police Protective Association.  “He is not our chief.”

If these words sound eerily familiar, it may be because the head of the police union in New York made a similar statement about Mayor Bill de Blasio when NYPD police officers were offended by a decision that he made.  Ultimately, some of them turned their backs on him when he appeared at public events.  This kind of behavior is counterproductive to solving problems and must stop.

Issues with the police and how they deal with the citizenry is not just an issue in Denver, Colorado but it is a national issue.  With the Erick Garner situation that occurred in New York and the Michael Brown situation that occurred in Missouri along with the problems that followed as a result of how those situations were handled, it is no wonder that the police chief in Denver would be extra sensitive when dealing with a potentially volatile situation.

The Denver Police Department has had problems in the past with lawsuits and claims of police brutality and it continues to have them now so Chief White likely did not want to call any unwanted attention to his Department.

And now, in light of articles in the Guardian covering allegations of the existence of a ‘black site’ run by the Chicago Police Department, it appears that Police Chief White might have been wise in his cautious approach and trying to deescalate and control the situation and prevent it from getting out of hand.  In this alleged ‘black site’ American citizens are allegedly virtually kidnapped, held prisoner and interrogated by Chicago police while being deprived of their constitutional rights before being formally taken into custody and getting booked.  If this proves to be true, there is something very scary and terribly wrong with this picture.

This is America and to deprive citizens of their Constitutional rights is not who we are.  While one of the unions representing the largest police department in the country has cried foul and accused those of being police haters who say that police too often overstep their bounds and need to be subject to checks and balances like everyone else, visible instances of police brutality continue to occur.  What is allegedly happening in Chicago would be off the chart and can only be made worse if management is lying when they deny it.

All police departments have been under the microscope lately as a result of the Erick Garner and Michael Brown cases and others like them. Likely as a result of public pressure brought about by protesters, both James Comey – the head of the FBI, and Police Commissioner Bill Bratton recently spoke out on the problem that exists between the police and people of color.  Both said some things that were critical of the police that went far beyond anything that either Attorney General Erick Holder or Mayor Bill de Blasio had said and were praised for it.  When Attorney General Holder and Mayor de Blasio said those things, they were severely criticized.

It is my opinion that Attorney General Holder was criticized because he is Black and Mayor de Blasio was criticized because he is married to a Black woman and they have a biracial son.  The fact is that, although it should not, color does matter.  But in this case – if there is such a thing, it matters for what might prove to be a good reason.

If having a powerful White person echo the words of a powerful Black person, or someone who is considered to be too closely tied to a Black person, is what it takes to get opposing sides to listen then sit down and have a reasonable conversation to solve a problem that has to be solved then I am all for it.

I am glad that FBI Director Comey and Commissioner Bratton had the courage to step forward and say what they said.  I do not agree with Commissioner Bratton’s assessment that the problem in the NYPD is not systemic and that police officers in the Department have been unfairly accused of being overzealous but those are the kind of things that can be discussed and fixed.

I do not think that Commissioner Bratton’s determination should be a non-starter; however, I do believe that the perspective of those on each side of this issue needs to be validated by the opposing side in order to have a meaningful conversation with the potential of resulting in a successful conclusion.

During these discussions, it is okay for participants to be angry and fight (verbally) but both sides must fight fair just like people in a successful marriage fight fair (perhaps a poor example and one that a lot of you won’t like).  But if there is to be any chance of success, I reiterate, participants have to fight fair!  This is one of those situations where all of us must shed our blinders – whether they are color, ethnicity, religious belief, or any other prejudice that we may have and; in the words of Commissioner Bratton, “see each other.”

I have no doubt that all police officers feel bound to some degree by the so called blue code, code of blue or whatever it is called but I also have no doubt that they struggle with the black and white, or people of color and white, issue just like the rest of America does.  I don’t profess to know how they can get beyond this situation but they must get beyond it.

Because of the nature of police officers’ job, they naturally form a close bond within their ranks and are at all times wary and vigilant of those outside of that bond.  They do not allow themselves to become too trusting of anyone other than a fellow police officer.

They must always protect themselves because when they must enforce the law, by doing so, they can provoke anger and unacceptable behavior.  There may be times when at a moment’s notice, they will have to take those people who they are laughing and interacting with into custody and this could create resistance from the person they are arresting and sometimes anger other members of that community.  Those of us who are not police officers need to accept those parameters even if we find them hard to understand.

On the other hand, good police officers must stop using the blue code to protect bad ones regardless of what it is that those bad police officers have done.  In addition, the culture of police management from the very top-level manager to the lowest level supervisor must be revisited and revamped in order to rid management of all of those who condone and perpetuate any type of behavior that is outside the law.

The ideal situation would be for the police and members of the communities that they serve and protect to somehow foster a mutual respect for each other and conduct themselves accordingly.  The police should be able to do their job with the respect and support of those communities as long as they operate within the parameters of the law, treat all community members with dignity and respect, and enforce the law without bias.  Unfortunately, that is not our current situation.

I once had the occasion to speak to a young Black man who had just had an encounter with the police in which he felt that he was treated with disrespect and loathing for no apparent reason.  He said that he was treated that way simply because he is Black.  And then after a short pause he added angrily, the police are just a gang with badges!

My encounter with that young man was a long time ago but his comment that “the police are just a gang with badges” stayed with me.  It is important to me that our young Black men and other people of color do not see police in that light.  But with all of the highly publicized negative things that are happening now with regard to the interaction between the police and people of color, it is not hard to understand why others like him might feel the same way.

The White experience and the Black experience with the police is not the same and America needs to fix that.  The only way that this can be done is for all of us to first admit that this problem exists.  Once we do that then the opposing sides can begin a conversation that can lead to a solution.  I hope that as a result of Director Comey and Commissioner Bratton acknowledging that there is a problem and speaking out about it, that is what will happen.

Eulus Dennis

Federal Politics, State Politics

Melding Cops And Communities

Once upon a time in a beautiful place called America police and communities were (almost) as one and (almost) everyone in these communities lived in harmony with them. (Most) Police lived in the communities that they served, walked beats and knew (most of) the people that they protected and served.  And (most of) the people of this beautiful land with ‘spacious skies’, ‘amber waves of grain’ and majestic purple mountains that towered above ‘the fruited plain’, cared for and highly respected the police.

This land was a land of hard-working immigrants who believed that anyone who worked hard and was determined could achieve ‘The American Dream’ for himself and his family.  They said, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddle masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teaming shore.  Send these the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

But as the years slowly drifted by in this dreamland that frequently stirred misty dreams of utopia, things changed and some of the police began to feel that they were not there to serve and protect the people in these communities by being good stewards of the law and enforcing it, instead, they began to feel that they were the law and, therefore, above it.  Thus began the downward spiral of this majestic land and the people began to complain and rebel.  Today…

Many people are completely fed up with the way that our police are treating the citizenry.  Police departments all around the country are experiencing this problem.  A perfect example of it is exemplified by the ongoing problem in the New York City Police Department (NYPD).  The quickest way for me to share with you what has taken place with the NYPD lately and is continuing to unfold is to share the content of the following article that I posted previously:

NYPD Unions Have Gone Too Far

All of New York and citizens throughout the United States feel the pain that the New York City Police Department (NYPD) feels for its two fallen police officers.  Everyone should be allowed to express those feelings, including Mayor Bill de Blasio.  For NYPD officers to turn their backs on mayor de Blasio at the urging of NYPD unions is shameful.  Not only is it shameful but it seems to me to, at least, border on insubordination.

The killing of these two innocent police officers was committed by someone who apparently had some mental problems.  Under these circumstances, even if the killer did evoke the names of Eric Garner and Michael Brown, it is ludicrous for anyone to lay the blame for what he did at the feet of peaceful protesters who are protesting against police brutality and unequal justice under the law.

For the NYPD unions to blame protesters and use it as an excuse to encourage NYPD police officers to turn their backs on the mayor does not make sense.  This is not the kind of leadership that those with such a grave responsibility as police officers should have.  They should expect more from their leaders.  New York is not a police state and neither is any other state in America.

Citizens have the right to peacefully protest and mayor de Blasio has a right to be a father and counsel his son as he deems necessary.  His situation with his son is unique because it is on the cusp of black and white.  He must recognize and effectively navigate both sides of this black and white dilemma; literally.  Probably all black parents have had the conversation with their children, especially if they are boys, about how they should conduct themselves with police officers.  I know that I had that conversation with my children.

Even if the NYPD unions feel that Mayor de Blasio does not support them and disagree with what he said about counseling his son to be careful in how he conducts himself if confronted by a police officer, they are still completely out of line to encourage NYPD police officers to turn their backs on the mayor out of disrespect for him because of this.  Even if they did not encourage officers to turn their backs on the mayor, as soon as union leaders became aware that officers had done this, they should have discouraged them from continuing to do it.

Whether this statement was a gaffe by the mayor or was something that he meant to say, he is still the mayor of New York and should be respected as such.  What if every angry citizen turned their backs on police and the heads of police departments every time an unarmed innocent citizen was killed whether accidentally or on purpose?  What kind of a society would we live in?

Mayor de Blasio may not be the direct manager of these NYPD officers who turned their backs on him or of the officers who head these unions but he is no doubt at the top of the NYPD organization chart.  What would happen if any of you reading this article treated your boss, let alone the Chief Executive Officer, the way that these NYPD officers treated the mayor?

The NYPD union leaders need to be more responsible and look at the big picture rather than allowing their anger and frustration to dictate their actions.  And if every manager from the chief of police down to the lowest level supervisor hasn’t addressed this issue with their subordinates and let them know that they do not condone such behavior, now is the time to do so.

That is the full content of my previously posted article.  One would think that with all that has happened thus far that the powers that be would put their heads together and try to find a solution.  They are trying.  But you might be surprised to learn what police commissioner Bill Bratton and Patrick Lynch, president of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, suggested.  They suggested that resisting arrest be made a felony charge rather than have it remain the misdemeanor charge that it is now.

According to an article in the atlantablackstar.com, when commissioner Bratton was asked about such a change he said that it is an idea that he enthusiastically supports.  And Patrick Lynch’s thoughts; according to this same article he said “We believe this change in law is necessary to deter the type of conduct we saw during last month’s demonstrations.”  He was referring to the protesters who had protested and are continuing to protest excessive force by police, police brutality and the recent deaths of unarmed citizens by police.

That’s right; these men want to give police even greater control over citizens by using the leverage of the threat of them being charged with a felony!  Never mind the fact that police have been found on previous occasions to have lied when they said that someone resisted arrest!  Never mind that police have used excessive force on numerous occasions!  Never mind the questionable deaths of many innocent people like Michael Brown, Erick Garner and Tamir Rice at the hands of police!

What do the commissioner and Patrick Lynch suggest is done to address the problems with police with respect to these situations and others like them?  For example, the recent situation like the one where a NYPD police officer was charged with stomping the head of someone he arrested?

Commissioner Bratton is a former police officer and although he may be a good man with good intentions, it appears that his natural instinct leads him to side with police officers rather than look at the problem objectively.  These protesters and citizens throughout the country who support them are not anti-police as Patrick Lynch has said that they are.

I don’t know about you but I think that somehow those powers that be are going to have to someway find a diverse group of police – including some who are already retired, and civilians who can look at this problem objectively and make a sincere effort to solve it.  We must bring police and communities together again and again make them (almost) as one.  America still won’t be the stuff of fairy tales but it will be better and at least working toward becoming a more perfect union.

Eulus Dennis

Local Politics, State Politics

How About a 10.3% Raise for Denver Elected Officials?

I read a recent article in denverpost.com by Jon Murray that said the Denver City Council gave its initial okay to a 10.3% raise for Denver elected officials.  According to the article, “Under the amended proposal, the first half of the salary increases would start July 20, when the winners of the May 5 election begin their terms.  The pay would be about $163,000 for the mayor; $141,000 for both the auditor and the clerk and recorder; and $87,500 for council members, with the president making roughly $10,000 more.”

The article further said that “In mid-2016, those salaries would increase again to $171,197 for the mayor; $148,061 for both the auditor and the clerk and recorder; and 91,915 for council members, with the president making about $11,000 more.”

Well isn’t that just peachy.  Although this increase is somewhat controversial and was opposed by some of the Council members before and after an amendment was added to make its acceptance more palatable, five of the thirteen members were still opposed to it.

These salaries are a pretty good chunk of change especially since – throughout America, including Colorado, it is all but impossible to get the country to agree to the minimum wage that President Obama has suggested.  Doesn’t it make you wonder if any of the elected officials in Colorado are fighting as hard for President Obama’s suggested minimum wage as some of the Denver City Council members did for an increase in these city elected officials salaries, which – incidentally included their own?

During his 2015 State of the Union address the president challenged members of congress to live on the annual salary produced by the minimum wage or vote to increase it.  He said, “…and everyone in this congress who still refuses to raise the minimum wage I say this, if you truly believe you can work fulltime and support a family on less than $15,000 a year, try it.  If not, vote to give millions of the hardest-working people in America a raise.”

If the mayor, auditor and the clerk and recorder, and council members feel that these new salaries – of which the lowest would be more than six times the annual pay of a person earning the minimum wage –  are required for them to live reasonably, how on God’s green earth can they expect someone earning a minimum wage to even survive?  They need to accept the challenge put forth by President Obama and “try it” or be more empathetic and work just as hard in the interest of those whom they represent as they do in their own self-interest.

Jon Murray’s article also said that Mayor Hannock has returned recent salary increases but has not yet publicly expressed a position on the current pending increases.  It continued by stating that “Supporters of the proposal argue that the increases will help elected officials’ salaries keep up with Denver housing costs…”  And Council member Peggy Lehmann even said that “…constituents get good value and service for salaries that total less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the city’s $1.7 billion operating budget.”  Again, how peachy.  That should really do a lot to cheer up those who are struggling to survive on a minimum wage.

Obviously the city of Denver does not make Colorado law but perhaps it can do something to influence it with respect to the minimum wage.  Areas with constituents who vote for city elected officials and state elected officials have common ground.  And the majority of Americans favor a minimum wage increase so any effort to bring it about should be an added value to the ‘good value and service for salaries’ previously mentioned.

Even if Denver elected officials can do absolutely nothing to influence the minimum wage law, if for no other reason than to show support – or not, for constituents’ demand for an increase in the minimum wage; especially in light of their own impending large lucrative salary increase, they should figure out a way to weigh in publicly on this issue.  That would at least let their constituents know that they feel their pain.

Eulus Dennis

Federal Politics, State Politics

Rich People and the Vanishing Middleclass

Rich people are a true enigma.  I wonder why they are so afraid of having a thriving middle-class group as a part of our social stratum.  Since they are not openly doing anything to encourage and support its revitalization, it seems that they are determined to do their part to totally eradicate it.

Based on research by Emmanuel Saez cited in “Striking it Richer: The Evolution of Top Incomes in the United States,” the middleclass has been slowly losing ground over the past 30 years while the rich have continued to get richer.  He said that the top 1% received 95% of the income gains between 2009-2012.  The report is due to be updated this month, January 2015.  Further, according to an article in The Washington Post by Michael A. Fletcher, those who remain in the middleclass have been steadily losing wealth.

Certainly rich people must know that a thriving middleclass is an intricate element in the foundation of their wealth and, over the long haul, they are sure to be impacted negatively if they persist in their blind march to eradicate them.  Who will buy the products that the rich have an indirect role in producing?  Who will be able to purchase the homes and automobiles that are a part of the prosperous communities that help to fuel a healthy and thriving economy?  These things fuel rich people’s wealth!

Maybe they are not purposely trying to get rid of the middleclass.  I wrote an article a while back that said that these millionaires and billionaires are blinded by their greed.  Could it be that they are so focused on constantly trying to catch up with the rich people ahead of them while trying to prevent those rich folks that they are ahead of from catching up with them that there is simply no more cognitive room available for them to comprehend the magnitude of the damage that they are doing.

It certainly can’t be because they are afraid that too many middle-class folks through determination and hard work will make it into their exclusive ranks and therefore dilute their exclusiveness and privileged life.  Under the circumstances, I am compelled to maintain my view that they are blinded by their greed.

One can only hope that, like the scale-like coverings that fell off of the eyes of the proverbial Saul, these virtual scales of greed obstructing their view will be removed before it is too late to avoid going over the cliff and destroying the middleclass.  After that – because we are a resilient people, even though recovery will be inevitable it will be a very long and hard road to travel.

With the mentioning of ‘going over the cliff’, I cannot help but to be reminded of the potential problem created by the 2014 midterm elections that gave the Republicans control of both houses of congress.  Republicans have always sided with big business and big money and have shown a propensity to take our country over what has become known as ‘the fiscal cliff’ if they are not given their way.

Many of them are threatening to use the ‘power of the purse’ to force President Obama to sign bills into law that are completely unacceptable to Democrats.  If they do this, we could once again be faced with this so called fiscal cliff problem.  If this actually occurs, it would exacerbate the problem that the struggling middleclass is already facing and accelerate their impending demise.

It would be wrong for me to paint all rich people with a broad brush because there are those who have spoken out in support of a more equitable sharing of the wealth.  And the Republican Party deserves a break too, albeit small, because although there are factions in the Party who are demanding a confrontation with the president at all cost, there are those who prefer a more reasonable approach and are working to convince the members in those factions to reconsider their position.

There are many difficult problems that our country is faced with right now that constitute the phenomenon of social and economic trauma choking America.  Many of the components of this phenomenon dovetail with the need to rescue and revitalize the middleclass; components like the loss of wealth by the middleclass while the top 1% have received 95% of the gain since the great recession, the deaths of Tamir Rice, Michael Brown, Erick Garner and Trayvon Martin, the ever widening income gap between the rich and the middleclass, the ever widening income gap between white people and people of color, the ever widening high school graduation rate between white people and people of color, the ever widening rate between white people who attend college and people of color who attend college; all of these components need to be addressed if we are to bring about real and lasting change.

It is hard for many Americans to even accept that we have problems in some of these areas let alone take the courageous and bold step to actually address them.  Some of those who refuse to accept this fact are naive.  Some are in total denial and some are fearful of the impact that these changes to make things more fair and equitable for everyone might have on them.

The fact of the matter is that by making the rich pay their fair share, standing up for equal justice under the law, finding a way to fairly distribute the wealth more equally and working to insure that all Americans have an opportunity to receive a quality education would be like a healing ointment.  It would not be a panacea but it would be a giant step in the right direction.

Middle-class Americans are not seeking to supplant the rich; that would be impossible.  They are simply seeking a way to live the American Dream.  To most that simply means a nice home, nice care, the ability to pay the bills and still take a vacation, the ability to send their children to college, and the ability to save for a rainy day.  We can give them a chance to do that by addressing these problems.

There is no doubt that this would be a tough call for many politicians to make but they are elected to make decisions, not just the easy and popular ones, for the betterment of our country and the common good of all of its people.  If they refuse to make them and instead choose to play politics, let’s force them to make them or replace them with someone who will.

Eulus Dennis

Federal Politics, Local Politics, State Politics

Will women pave the way to better governance? More of them deserve a chance to try.

I hope that it doesn’t turn out that women are more reasonable when it comes to governance than are men.  I want us to be just as reasonable as women and I want us to be a steppingstone rather than a stumbling block.  Ok, so maybe I’m a little bit biased in favor of men.  I try not to be but if I am to be honest, that’s the way that it is right now; I’m making progress.

But sometimes I think that as men, we might think with the wrong mix of testosterone versus brain; too much testosterone and too little brain.  We think in terms of things like, you want a piece of us (the United States)?  Bring it!  I heard that ‘bring it’ thing somewhere before; I think it was an extremely high top-level US elected official who said it but I’m not sure.  Anyway, I think that women are somewhat less prone to take that approach.  I don’t have any empirical data that says it is because they use a greater mix of brain than testosterone but it would not surprise me if that is the case.

Anyway, if women can help to get us back on track to more positive governance, whether or not it is related to the testosterone versus brain mix does not matter.  What we need as a country is to find a way to get back to governance instead of partisan politics and gridlock.

I read an article in the Tribune Washington Bureau by Lisa Mascaro titled ‘House abortion bill switch reveals emerging clout of moderate Republicans.’  Although these conservative Republican women bristled and some even fumed at being called moderate, at least they worked to make the Republican anti-abortion bill that the House passed more acceptable.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi felt that the Republicans had an ulterior motive for making this bill more palatable and was not at all impressed by what these women did but that’s okay.  At least it is a start.  Hopefully it is a start in the direction that will lead to meaningful compromise that will allow our country to move forward toward a more perfect union and grow in those areas where we desperately need it most right now; the areas of tolerance and understanding.

Don’t get me wrong, as a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat I am suspect of these seemingly forward-looking Republican women just like Minority Leader Pelosi is but no more so than they would be, especially lately, of a Democrat who acted as if they were interested in compromise and governance rather than partisan politics and gridlock.

To me, what these women did is refreshing and, at least for now, it appears that even though they are committed to holding on to their principles – which deserves our respect, they are still willing to work toward compromise in an effort to find common ground.  With all of the political posturing directed at voters in the name of ‘principle’ in order to justify the current gridlock in Washington that too, is refreshing.

Even if women are not the catalyst that will stimulate a more cerebral approach to governance and willingness to compromise, they still deserve greater representation in what has long appeared to be the good-ole-boy club that is the Senate… and I would even include the House.  Both Parties, especially the Grand Ole Party, could use more women in leadership and non-leadership positions.  I hope that this will happen.  I also hope that, as a result, governance will be infused with a fresh way of thinking and all of us will be better for it.

Eulus Dennis

State Politics

Fragile: Handle With Care

Does it seem that everyone, including the media and politicians, is gingerly handling the New York Police Depart (NYPD) and its police officers even though these officers are openly and regularly provoking and defying authority?  Does it seem that they are afraid to criticize the Department and these officers even if they believe that what the officers are doing is wrong?  And if they are, is there a reason why they are treating them with kid gloves?  Or, am I just overreacting and they are simply handling a delicate situation in the way that it should be handled?

Isn’t Mayor de Blasio the person who appoints the NYPD Commissioner?  For the NYPD to feign a show of respect for the commissioner but openly disrespect the mayor in the commissioner’s presence not only shows disrespect for the mayor but it also shows disrespect for the commissioner who is the NYPD Chief’s boss.  In most cities if police officers conducted themselves in this manner and the person who was appointed by the mayor and is at the top of the organization chart did not hold them accountable, wouldn’t that person be replaced?

If the commissioner is treading softly at the behest of the mayor the two of them are doing an outstanding job of keeping it secret.  As I have said before, even if these NYPD officers do not respect the mayor, they should respect the position and office that he represents.  If they have grievances they certainly should be able to air them but the funeral of a fallen police officer is not the time or the place for this and neither should it be done by a public showing of disrespect for the mayor.

I realize that Mayor de Blasio is not the president of the United States or even the governor of New York but it is not hard to imagine what would happen to someone who serves at the pleasure of the President of the United States or the Governor of New York if they witnessed this kind of conduct by subordinates and did not hold them accountable; especially if it happened repeatedly.  For me, it is somewhat disconcerting to watch this scenario play out while these police officers act so boldly and with such an air of impunity.

There are those who say that Mayor de Blasio should apologize to the NYPD and tell them that he made a mistake.  What I would like to know is exactly what it is that he said that he should apologize for.  If he is at fault, does that mean that it is okay for the police to all but stop doing their job?  Is the mayor, who was elected by the people of New York City, looked upon by the NYPD police officers as just a figurehead and that they are the ones who really run the city?

There are many of us who believe that a large majority of NYPD police officers and police officers throughout the country want to be fair and even-handed with all of the people that they police.  They want to stop and question citizens only if they truly have reasonable suspicion to do so.  If they need to use force, they want to use only the required amount of force.  If a situation becomes heated, if possible, they want to deescalate it.  They just want to do their job and not be demonized for it.  If they are appreciated for it then they see that as an added bonus and graciously accept it.

I believe, as probably do many others, that this large majority of police officers know that some of their fellow police officers – who are in the minority – profile citizens, use excessive force and in other ways abuse their authority.  Those officers in the majority may not participate in these activities but they turn their heads away and remain silent because of the so-called ‘blue code.’  Their silence is deafening!

I don’t know if police departments around the country need to provide police officers with more training while paying special attention to what, right now, appear to be problem areas for almost all police departments.  But I do know that it is time for brave police officers in that large majority to step forward and speak up.  It is not the only way to change things and improve police departments so that they will work better and begin to build mutual respect and trust between police and the communities that they serve and protect but it absolutely must be a key part of the solution.

Eulus Dennis

Federal Politics, State Politics

Mayor Giuliani Responsible For Heckling?

Is former mayor Rudy Giuliani responsible for New York Police Department (NYPD) cadets heckling Mayor Bill de Blasio during his speech to them at their graduation ceremony?  Well, it depends on which standards one chooses to apply.

If you apply the standards for laying blame that former mayor Giuliani used to conclude that Mayor de Blasio somehow shares responsibility for the deaths of two NYPD police officers, he is definitely responsible.  However – if you choose to apply more reasonable standards, laying the responsibility directly at his feet will prove to be more difficult if not impossible.

Mayor Giuliani may not be responsible for these cadets heckling Mayor de Blasio but by conducting himself in the way that he has recently, he certainly isn’t doing anything to help the NYPD, New York or the country to move toward finding a solution so that we can come together and begin to heal.

While Mr. Giuliani has a lot of power and influence that he could and should use to lead and help bring all of the previously mentioned entities together so that reasonable conversations can be had, they would be better off if he remained silent rather than make divisive comments.  As a seasoned politician, he no doubt knows this.

Mr. Giuliani has a right to his perspective and a right to express his opinions and concerns just as does Mayor de Blasio.  But in order for him to help solve the problem he would have to not do exactly what he has accused Mayor de Blasio of doing; give the appearance of taking sides.  He would have to exercise an open mind and side with right or wrong rather than cops or protesters.

If those on both sides of this issue side with right or wrong rather than cops or protesters then we will stand a reasonable chance of finding a solution; even though there is bound to be a dichotomy of what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong.’  If both sides choose to limit their choice to cops or protesters then the chance of finding a workable solution is greatly reduced and reaching an agreement unlikely.

Upon reviewing this article before posting it I began to feel as if the articles that I post are, to some degree, a repeat of previously posted articles.  At first I felt like; the reason why I feel this way is because they are, and that I would stop posting until different and fresh newsworthy information presented itself.  Upon further evaluation though, I realized that these articles are not repeats of themselves but an expansion on the coverage of what is happening as it continues to evolve.

As a result, I decided to continue posting my thoughts about what I observe as I continue to read articles and watch coverage by various news media on what is happening with these issues.  What I share with you via my posts hopefully will keep you engaged and stimulate your thoughts on current political events.  Then – if you chose to do more research and learn more about them, you can.

That way, you will continue to build a foundation on which you can base your more informed decision-making the next time that you speak to your elected representatives or go to the polls.  Or – it may simply cause you to leave a comment expressing your thoughts, which might generate other comments that will, in conglomerate, culminate in what will have amounted to a healthy discussion.

That would be great because, after all, that is what this site is all about!

Eulus Dennis

Federal Politics, State Politics

NYPD Unions Have Gone Too Far

All of New York and citizens throughout the United States feel the pain that the New York City Police Department (NYPD) feels for its two fallen police officers.  Everyone should be allowed to express those feelings, including Mayor Bill de Blasio.  For NYPD officers to turn their backs on mayor de Blasio at the urging of NYPD unions is shameful.  Not only is it shameful but it seems to me to, at least, border on insubordination.

The killing of these two innocent police officers was committed by someone who apparently had some mental problems.  Under these circumstances, even if the killer did evoke the names of Eric Garner and Michael Brown, it is ludicrous for anyone to lay the blame for what he did at the feet of peaceful protesters who are protesting against police brutality and unequal justice under the law.

For the NYPD unions to blame protesters and use it as an excuse to encourage NYPD police officers to turn their backs on the mayor does not make sense.  This is not the kind of leadership that those with such a grave responsibility as police officers should have.  They should expect more from their leaders.  New York is not a police state and neither is any other state in America.

Citizens have the right to peacefully protest and mayor de Blasio has a right to be a father and counsel his son as he deems necessary.  His situation with his son is unique because it is on the cusp of black and white.  He must recognize and effectively navigate both sides of this black and white dilemma; literally.  Probably all black parents have had the conversation with their children, especially if they are boys, about how they should conduct themselves with police officers.  I know that I had that conversation with my children.

Even if the NYPD unions feel that Mayor de Blasio does not support them and disagree with what he said about counseling his son to be careful in how he conducts himself if confronted by a police officer, they are still completely out of line to encourage NYPD police officers to turn their backs on the mayor out of disrespect for him because of this.  Even if they did not encourage officers to turn their backs on the mayor, as soon as union leaders became aware that officers had done this, they should have discouraged them from continuing to do it.

Whether this statement was a gaffe by the mayor or was something that he meant to say, he is still the mayor of New York and should be respected as such.  What if every angry citizen turned their backs on police and the heads of police departments every time an unarmed innocent citizen was killed whether accidentally or on purpose?  What kind of a society would we live in?

Mayor de Blasio may not be the direct manager of these NYPD officers who turned their backs on him or of the officers who head these unions but he is no doubt at the top of the NYPD organization chart.  What would happen if any of you reading this article treated your boss, let alone the Chief Executive Officer, the way that these NYPD officers treated the mayor?

The NYPD union leaders need to be more responsible and look at the big picture rather than allowing their anger and frustration to dictate their actions.  And if every manager from the chief of police down to the lowest level supervisor hasn’t addressed this issue with their subordinates and let them know that they do not condone such behavior, now is the time to do so.

Eulus Dennis